AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

ENROLLMENT CUTS, FALL 2009-FALL 2010

Brittany Diane Jibby

B.A., California State University, Stanislaus, 2008

THESIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION at

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

SPRING

2011

© 2011


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii


ENROLLMENT CUTS, FALL 2009-FALL 2010

A Thesis by


Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Mary Kirlin, D.P.A.

__________________________________, Second Reader

Su Jin Jez, Ph.D.

____________________________

Date iii

Student: Brittany Diane Jibby

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Department Chair

Robert W. Wassmer, Ph.D.

Department of Public Policy and Administration

___________________

Date iv

Abstract of


ENROLLMENT CUTS, FALL 2009-FALL 2010 by


I sought to discover if any student populations were disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts put in place within the California State University to be completed within the 2010-2011 academic year. I produced this analysis using descriptive analysis, studying both system-wide and campus level impacts to student enrollment. Focusing on two student characteristics, race/ethnicity and class level, I hypothesized that Latino students and transfer students would be potentially the most vulnerable to enrollment cuts. I measured percent change in enrollment with enrollment data retrieved from the

California State University website.

Overall, African American students were race/ethnicity most negatively impacted by enrollment cuts while first-time freshman were the most negatively impacted class level. Asian/Pacific Islander students realized the largest gains in enrollment during the period of enrollment cuts as well as transfer students.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Mary Kirlin, D.P.A.

_______________________

Date v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my family for always supporting me and instilling in me the importance of education. Without them or my mom’s “GET BACK TO WORK” bbm’s, I would not have made it this far.

To my sister, Brandie. If you can imagine it, you can do it. Imagine it and do it.

Throughout countless revisions, I could like to thank Mary Kirlin and Su Jin Jez for serving as my fearless advisors, leading me down the path to the finish line.

Many thanks to the Dewey Square Group for supporting my Master’s degree by allowing me the flexibility to take time off to work on various papers, homework assignments and of course, this thesis. Particular thanks to my boss, Margaret Lyons, and the entire Social Innovation and Philanthropy Practice because we rock.

And last but not least, to my Grandpa, who is no longer with us but is an inspiration for everything and not a day goes by that I do not think of him. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Increased Demand for Bachelor’s Degrees in California ................................. 1

Minorities In California .................................................................................... 2

Impact ...............................................................................................................5

Flow of Thesis ...................................................................................................6

2. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................7

Background ....................................................................................................... 7

Implementing Enrollment Cuts ....................................................................... 13

Literature Review............................................................................................ 20

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 26

4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 31

Percent Change in Student Enrollment Trends ............................................... 33

African American Students ............................................................................. 34

Asian/Pacific Islander Students ...................................................................... 36

Latino Students ............................................................................................... 38

White Students ................................................................................................ 41

Class Level Impacts ........................................................................................ 45

5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 47

Revisiting the Research Question ................................................................... 47

Status of Student Enrollment in the CSU ....................................................... 50

Options for Future Research ............................................................................52 vii

Appendix A. Map of the 23 California State University Campuses ........................ 55

Appendix B. Percent Change in Total Enrollment by Campus and System-wide, Fall

2009-Fall 2010 ............................................................................................... 56

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 57 viii

5.

6.

7.

3.

4.

1.

2.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Mandated Enrollment Reductions for 2010-2011 School Year ………...13

Table 2 Label and Description of the Student Populations to Be

Studied………………………………………...…………………………………29

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum & Maximum Values Of the Student

Populations To Be Studied By Campus/System-wide.………………...…...……32

Table 4 Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on African American

Students.……………………………………………………………………….…35

Table 5 Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Asian/Pacific Islander

Students.……………………………………………………………………….…37

Table 6 Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Latino Students……....……39

Table 7 Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on White Students……………42 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 California Population 2000-2016, by Race/Ethnicity

……………..…... 3

1.

2.

3.

4.

Figure 2 California Population and Bachelor’s Degree by Race/Ethnicity (By

Percent), 2008/2009……………………………….……...……………………….4

Figure 3 California State University Revenue: General Fund v. Student Fees,

1997-1998 to 2010-2011………………….……………………………………...10

Figure 4 CSU System-wide Enrollment- Funded Targets vs. Actual FTES, 1999-

2000 to 2011-2012…………………………….…………………………...…….11

5. Figure 5 Where California’s California Community College Students Transferred,

2003-2004 to 2009-2010……………………….……………………………..… 19

Figure 6 CSU Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 1998-2009……………….… 33 6.

7. Figure 7 Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Total Latino Student

Enrollment...…………………………………………………………….………. 40

8. Figure 8 Percent Change in Total White Student Enrollment by Campus, Fall

2009 to Fall 2010...……….…………………………...………………………....43

9. Figure 9 System-wide Impacts to Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity…...… 45

10. Figure 10 Impacts to Class Level: First-time Freshman v Transfer Students...… 46

11. Figure 11 First-Time Freshman Enrollment, Fall 2001-Fall 2009…..……….… 49 x

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

In California, consecutive years of declining financial support from the state and over-enrollment led the California State University (CSU), the nation’s largest public

1 higher education system, to implement a historic 10% enrollment cut for its 2010-2011 academic year. This thesis will assess preliminary impacts of enrollment cuts with a descriptive analysis, studying system-wide and campus level impacts to enrollment, seeking an answer to the following question: Were any student populations disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts within the CSU?

The outcome of this analysis will provide an initial snapshot to CSU officials to how enrollment cuts affected educational opportunity at the CSU. I will focus on two student characteristics: race/ethnicity and class level (first-time freshman and transfer students), hypothesizing

Latino and transfer students will be the student populations disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts.

Increased Demand for Bachelor’s Degrees in California

Due to a shortfall between the demand for and supply of college graduates

(Johnson, 2011a), Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) projects California will face a “skills gap” by 2025. By 2025, while 41% of Californians must possess college degrees to fulfill the state’s occupational demands, only an estimated 35% of Californians will possess one (2011a). With a looming deficit of college graduates, this is not the time for California’s public universities to be cutting their student enrollments.

This gap of approximately one million college graduates may exist in California

2 for two key reasons: lack of skilled workers to replace retiring baby-boomers and a surge in populations who tend to have lower college attendance and graduation rates (Hanak &

Baldasarre, 2005). The latter, a surge in populations with lower educational attainment, is one of the cornerstones of this thesis and discussed further within this section.

The rest of this chapter explores the evolving demographics of California and implications on California’s educational future with special focus on why it is particularly important to support Latino’s in their pursuit of higher education. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the ramifications of not meeting the state’s demand for bachelor’s degrees in 2025.

Minorities In California

Between 2000 and 2010, California’s population increased by nearly 3.5 million people. A swell in the Latino population accounted for much of this increase. The 2010

Census reported in the last decade, the Latino population in California increased by a little over 3 million people from 10.97 million in 2000 to 14.01 million in 2010.

Additionally, the White population decreased by almost a million from 15.82 million in

2000 from 14.96 million in 2010 (State of California, Department of Finance, 2000; State of California, Department of Finance, 2011). This explosion of Latino’s in California will likely continue into the next decade with the Latino population, surpassing the White population by 2016 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

California Population 2000-2016*, by Race/Ethnicity

18 000 000

16 000 000

14 000 000

12 000 000

10 000 000

8 000 000

6 000 000

4 000 000

2 000 000

0

Population

Year

White

Latino

Asian/Pacific Islander

African American

Source: State of California, Department of Finance (2010b) & State of California, Department of Finance

(2007)

*2000-2008 are actual, 2009-2016 are estimates

Educational Attainment

3

Despite increased minority representation within California’s population (see Figure

1), significant differences in educational attainment by race/ethnicity exist. Traditionally, the “fastest-growing” racial/ethnic groups have the lowest level of educational attainment

(Ruy, 2009) and this is true in California. Of California’s major racial/ethnic groups,

Latino’s have the lowest level of educational attainment: an average 10.7 years of school, equivalent to a “not a high school graduate” (State of California, Department of Finance,

2010a). Therefore, it should be not be surprising that Latino’s also lag behind at the college graduate level of educational attainment.

A 10% disparity exists between the Latino college enrollment and the Latino

population within the state. This means that in California, Latino college enrollment falls

4 behind the Latino population at a rate of 10% (Wells, 2008) falling behind African-

Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Further, Latino’s have the least amount of college graduates (12%) compared to their state population (37%). As for other minorities,

Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans surpass or are on target, respectively (see

Figure 2).

Figure 2

California Population and Bachelor’s Degree by Race/Ethnicity (By Percent),

2008/2009*

70,00%

2008/2009 Population

60,00%

50,00%

2008/2009

Bachelor’s Degree

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

Race/Ethnicity

Source: State of California, Department of Finance (2010b)

*This data represents the average of two consecutive years of data: 2008 & 2009

In addition, the college-going cohort of 18-24 year olds is one of the fastestgrowing age groups in California, expected to grow by 27% or nearly a million people by

2014 (Brady, Hout, Stiles, et. al., 2005). Of this growth, minorities will dominate a majority: two-thirds Latino’s, nearly 10% Asian/Pacific Islanders and up to 17% African

Americans (2005). With California in need of college graduates and a growing minority

5 college-age cohort, the educational attainment of Latino’s needs to be addressed urgently.

Impact

A college education yields both economic and non-economic benefits to the graduate and the state. Economic benefits include income, health insurance, job satisfaction and other occupation-related perceived benefits (Perna, 2005). In 2009,

Californian’s with a Bachelor’s degree made a median income of $51,938 a year compared to $26,950 a year for a high school graduate (California Post-Secondary

Education Commission, 2009). Further, in the current recession, Californians with a college degree have had lower unemployment rates than those with lower levels of education (Johnson, 2011a). Additionally, a college education is financially beneficial to the state through increased tax revenue and productivity. Non-economic benefits of a college education include a positive correlation to health-related behaviors, leisure activities and civic engagement (Perna, 2005). Yet despite such attractive benefits, those most likely to benefit from a college education continue to be the least likely to obtain one (Brand & Xie, 2010).

As discussed at the beginning of this section, by 2025, California’s workforce will face a predicted shortfall of one million college graduates. Therefore, if California is not able to meet this workforce demand, it will not receive such benefits of an educated workforce but instead face a range of negative economic consequences. Without a skilled workforce, California will not be able to fill its employment opportunities properly. With

occupational vacancies in highly skilled industries, California could face a decrease in productivity (Johnson, 2011a), potentially threatening the competitiveness of its economy. With an increased supply of workers competing for a limited number of lower-

6 skilled jobs, Californians may earn lower incomes, leading to a potential increase in dependence on social services and decrease in income tax revenue (2011a).

Flow of Thesis

The rest of this thesis will unfold as outlined here. Chapter 2 will review the origins of California State University (CSU) enrollment cuts and their implementation. I will then explain why Latino’s and transfer students could be the student population disproportionally affected by enrollment cuts. Chapter 3 will focus on the methodology, describing both data collection and data analysis. Chapter 4 will present the findings and finally, Chapter 5 will tie the findings back to the research question by discussing the implications of enrollment cuts, the status of the CSU and options for future research.

7

Chapter 2

BACKGROUND

The Introduction explained the need for college graduates in California; particularly, Latino college graduates. This chapter will present a complete picture of what led the California State University (CSU) system to implement enrollment cuts as well as why Latino’s and transfer students could be the student populations disproportionately impacted by enrollment cuts.

Background

Public higher education in California is composed of three branches: California

Community College (CCC) system, California State University (CSU) system, and

University of California (UC) system. Community colleges are 2-year colleges that provide basic skills education and general education classes to prepare students for transfer to a 4-year college while the CSU and UC are 4-year degree granting institutions.

More than four out of five California college students are enrolled in one of the three systems (Johnson, 2011a). Each year in California, CSU and UC campuses bestow nearly

75% of bachelor’s degrees (2011a). Moving forward, I will focus on the CSU system and assess the impacts of their enrollment cuts for the 2010-2011 academic year.

The California State University System

The California State University (CSU) system was established in 1972 and has since grown into a network of 23 campuses ranging from Humboldt to San Diego (For a map of the 23 CSU campuses, see Appendix A). In 2008-2009, the CSU enrolled over

8

430,000 students and graduated 93,000 with degrees from nearly 400 different

Bachelor’s, Master’s and Joint Doctorate programs. A 25-member Board of Trustees

(BOT) leads the CSU and appoints the Chancellor to serve as the system’s Chief

Executive Officer (CEO). Similarly, at a CSU campus, the BOT appoints a campus

President to serve as its CEO. Together, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor and campus Presidents develop and implement policy ranging in topics from academic to fiscal.

The recession, in conjunction with its desire to meet the increased demand, put the CSU in a precarious financial situation, forcing it to take extreme measures to resolve.

In November 2008, the CSU announced it would cut student enrollment to stabilize the system’s fiscal status. From there, each campus developed their own enrollment management plan to cut enrollment, given specific guidelines developed by the CSU. The next two sub-sections will describe what led the CSU to enrollment cuts: its budget and over-enrollment.

CSU Budget

Decreased state funding for public higher education is a nationwide trend. Within the last twenty years, state funding to public higher education has decreased 30-50% throughout the nation (Moyer, 2010). Further, since the beginning of the recession, 43 states have decreased their fiscal support of public higher education (Johnson, Oliff &

Williams, 2010), reducing staff and faculty positions, financial aid programs and executing tuition increases up to 30% to support the 2010-2011 academic year (2010).

The CSU’s budget has two main sources of revenue: a yearly appropriation from the state’s General Fund and the State University Fee, charged to each enrolled CSU

9 student based on their residency and enrollment status. Traditionally, the General Fund appropriation funded the majority of the CSU’s budget with the State University Fee serving as a minor revenue source.

Recently, California’s fiscal challenges transformed the State University Fee into a larger and more stable revenue source for the CSU. In 1997-98, the state’s General

Fund allocation made up nearly 80% of the CSU’s budget and with only 20% from student fee revenue. Now, nearly 15 years later, the state’s General Fund allocation has decreased by 20% while student fee revenue has increased by 20%, leading to a revenue stream of 60% General Fund and 40% student fees (see Figure 3).

10

Figure 3

California State University Revenue: General Fund v. Student Fees, 1997-1998 to 2010-

2011

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

2007-2008

2006-2007

2005-2006

2004-2005

2003-2004

2002-2003

2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

1997-1998

General Fund

Student Fees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: CSU Budget Office, 1997, CSU Budget Office, 1998, CSU Budget Office, 1999, CSU Budget

Office 2000, CSU Budget Office, 2010a, California Post-Secondary Education Commission, 2008a, and

California State University, 2010d

In total, student fees have increased 242% over the past 8 years. Yet, despite steady increases in the State University Fee, CSU student fees have remained consistently lower than the fees of comparable institutions (California State University, 2010f). In

2010-11, CSU fees were $5,180 in comparison to North Carolina State University’s

$6,529 and Cleveland State University’s $8,466 (2010f). Unfortunately, fee increases alone could not combat the CSU’s budget shortfalls, which is why the CSU implemented extreme actions such as enrollment cuts to alleviate it.

11

Over-Enrollment

Too much enrollment growth heightened financial strife within the CSU. In addition to its general fund allocation, on a year-by-year basis, the state typically allocates additional fiscal support for student enrollment growth up to a specific FTES enrollment target established by the state. Available funding, predicted demand and number of continuing students determines the FTES enrollment target each year.

FTES, or full-time equivalent student, is a term for calculating student workload for purposes of state funding. The general standard for calculating FTES is 15 units for undergraduates and 12 units for undergraduates. On the other hand, the term “headcount” refers to each individual student. Based on the availability of data, I calculate the impact of enrollment cuts in terms of headcount not FTES.

Figure 4

CSU System-wide Enrollment- Funded Targets vs. Actual FTES, 1999-2000 to 2011-

2012

400 000

350 000

300 000

250 000

200 000

150 000

100 000

50 000

Target

Actual

0

Source: CSU Budget Office 2010b

12

CSU FTES student enrollment grew steadily between the 2004-2005 and 2009-

2010 academic years (see Figure 4). From the 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 academic years, the CSU system enrolled FTES beyond its funded enrollment target. Some CSU campuses enrolled more FTES than they had the financial resources to support, seeking to meet a rapidly increasing demand from eligible students. This was a common practice among CSU campuses. Over 75% of CSU campuses enrolled students above their enrollment target more than 5 times over the past decade (California State University, n.d. (c), n.d. (d), n.d. (e), n.d. (f), n.d. (g), n.d. (h)).

At these campuses, over-enrollment led to an unfunded gap between target enrollment and actual enrollment that campuses had to allocate money and resources to serve. In the 2007-2008 academic year, the CSU had over 11,000 unfunded full-time equivalent students (FTES) system-wide (Turnage, 2010). Additional growth in 2008-

2009 was also unfunded, widening the system-wide gap between target and actual enrollment.

Campuses used reserve funds as one-time funding sources to support unfunded students with larger class sizes, temporary faculty and additional class sections while decreasing support for student services such as academic advising and financial aid services. Anecdotal evidence suggests some campuses were able to achieve economies of scale such that student fee revenues were sufficient to offset the costs associated with additional students. To realign actual enrollment to target (or state-funded) levels, CSU

13 campuses implemented enrollment management strategies to re-align its 2010-2011 enrollments to funded levels, similar to its 2007-2008 enrollment. I will present the actual impacts of this realignment within the Results chapter.

Implementing Enrollment Cuts

Despite consecutive years of enrollment growth funding, the CSU’s actual enrollment outpaced its enrollment target. This left CSU campuses with the challenge of supporting unfunded students while trying to balance budgets in light of decreased financial support from the state. Money-saving strategies negotiated at the system level included staff and employee furloughs. Additionally, each campus had to make ends meet individually, reconciling its campus budget with its student enrollment.

The overall goal of enrollment cuts was to align actual enrollment with funded enrollment levels, requiring a nearly 10% reduction of the CSU’s student enrollment. To achieve this goal, the CSU provided each campus with a mandated FTES reduction for the 2010-2011 academic year (see Table 1).

Table 1

Mandated FTES Reductions for 2010-2011 Academic Year

Campus Size

20,000+ FTES

12,000-20,000 FTES

Mandated FTES

Reduction (%)

10.8

9.5

7,000-12,000 FTES

Less than 7,000 FTES

Source: Varlotta, 2010

6.0

No Reduction

14

Enrollment Management Strategies

To reach their mandated reduced enrollment reduction, a range of enrollment management techniques were implemented campus-by-campus. Application deadlines

(ie: November 30 for Fall) were strictly enforced especially as campuses approached their enrollment targets. Through enforcement of application deadlines and other often-ignored rules, the CSU estimated an enrollment reduction of 4,000 students for Fall 2009

(California State University, 2009d). Campuses, who did not yet meet their enrollment target, were able to accept applications until they reached their target, but no later March

1 (California State University, 2008b).

In addition, as necessary, Winter and Spring enrollment was limited or closed for campuses who had met their enrollment target such was the case for many campuses’

Winter and/or Spring 2010 terms. By eliminating new Spring enrollment, the CSU estimated enrollment had the potential to be reduced by nearly 35,000 students

(California State University, 2009a). Additionally, campuses were encouraged to require mandatory orientations for first-time freshman or transfers, enrollment deposits, and/or disqualify students who could not meet the conditions of their acceptance (Jones, 2008).

Impaction

For campuses facing a larger enrollment demand than it could serve, the CSU offered campuses the option to declare impaction (Jones, 2008). Impaction allowed a campus to manage new student enrollment with additional targeted strategies. Because

CSU’s are required to accept all local eligible students, a campus could be in danger of

15 exceeding its enrollment target if it received more applications from local fully qualified applicants than the campus had the resources and/or physical capacity to serve (California

State University, 2010g).

Impaction could occur at the campus and/or degree program level. Previously, campus and/or program impaction had been enforced at select highly popular campuses such as San Luis Obispo. In the 2008-2009 academic year, 6 campuses declared impaction, more than doubling to 14 campuses in 2009-2010 (Varlotta, 2010).

How is Impaction Implemented?

When managing enrollment, continuing students receive enrollment priority. An impacted campus then prioritizes enrollment opportunities to CSU-eligible upper-division transfer students then first-time freshman from within its “local admission area”. (The matrix of the “local admission areas” for each campus including specific local high schools and community colleges is available on the CSU website.) Secondarily, pending space, CSU-eligible students from outside the “local admission area” had the potential for admittance. Their admittance was based on available space and position on a campus priority waitlist, ranking student’s eligibility to meet additional admission criteria such as the CSU freshman eligibility index, additional GPA requirements for A-G coursework or transferrable community college courses. After enrolling such students, if an impacted campus still had not met its enrollment target, it could then offer enrollment to the following categories of students until it met its target: ineligible first-time freshman, lower-division or upper-division transfers, students seeking a second Bachelor’s degree,

16 and/or un-classified post-baccalaureate students (Jones, 2008).

Campus Spotlight: Northridge

With each campus charged to develop its own customized enrollment management plan, Vice President of Student Affairs Terry D. Piper led such efforts at

California State University, Northridge. As one of the CSU’s largest campuses, CSU

Northridge’s enrollment reduction mandate 10.8% (or 2,787 FTES). To cut 2,787 FTES,

Northridge sought to reduce FTES at every level.

To begin, an elimination of state support for summer classes would reduce FTES by 750 (Piper, 2009). (Moving summer classes into Continuing Education places full financial costs of instruction onto students.) Next, first-time freshman enrollment was to be reduced 310 FTES through actions such as scaling back recruitment activities and enforcing all deadlines including the November 30 Fall application deadline. To reduce transfer students by 356 FTES, Northridge would implement the aforementioned actions in addition to requiring all transfer students to complete no less than 60 transferable units.

Continuing students were to be reduced by 1,371 FTES by some of the following tactics establishing paths to graduation for super seniors and the enforcement of strict academic policies including disqualification and course repeat limits. Finally, Northridge would not enroll new students for the Spring 2011 semester. Further, planning for the subsequent academic year 2011-2012, Northridge predicted it would continue these strategies. The enrollment management strategies implemented by Northridge mirrors standard enrollment management techniques recommended by the CSU and implemented

17 at campuses throughout the system.

Impact of Enrollment Cuts

If fully implemented, the California Post-Secondary Education Commission

(CPEC) reported the actual impact of the CSU’s 10% enrollment cuts would have translated to up to 55,000 un-served undergraduate students (Wilson, Newell, & Fuller,

2010): 22,272 students in 2009-2010 and 33,051 students in 2010-2011 academic years.

The CPEC calculated this opportunity cost, or loss of “college opportunity” (2010), using the following formula and traditional enrollment percentages by class level.

Basing 2009-2010 enrollment on the total Fall 2008 enrollment (437,008), 70%

(or 305,095 students) of the students would be continuing undergraduate students while

30% (or 131,103) would be new enrollees. From the 131,103 spaces available for new students, a cut of 20,000, or half of the 40,000 enrollment cut, would bring total availability to 111,103. Of these 111,103 spaces, undergraduates occupied 83% (or

92,215) of these spaces such as first-time freshman and transfer students. CPEC predicted the demand for enrollment in the CSU by undergraduates in 2009-2010 to be

114,987. Therefore, the real loss of students is the demand less the actual spaces, calculating up to 22,772 un-served students in the 2009-2010 academic year.

Following this same formula with 91,103 available spaces (the 2009-2010 level of new enrollees less a 20,000 cut), the 2010-2011 academic year would have denied 33,051 students to complete the enrollment cuts of 10%, or approximately 40,000students, for an actual total impact of over 56,000 students un-served.

Prioritizing applications based on “local admission areas” would not make a large

18 impact on curtailing enrollment except at popular campuses such as San Luis Obispo, San

Diego, Fullerton or Long Beach, who enroll students from throughout the state.

Traditionally, 80-85% of CSU students attend their local campus (California State

University, 2008c). Therefore, “local admission areas” simply serve to protect priority admission to a student’s local campus- assuming they meet admission requirements.

CSU enrollment cuts may have had the most negative impact on the California

Community College system and its eligible transfer students. Increased demand from first-time freshman rejected from the CSU and/or decreased transfer opportunities into the CSU may have led the CCC into a situation of “enrollment back-up”. Like the CSU, the California Community College system exceeded its funded enrollment target by

13,000 students in the 2007-2008 academic year (LAO, 2010) but then decreased its enrollment by 140,000 students between the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years

(Newell, 2010). Of these enrollment cuts, first-time freshman represented an overwhelming majority (2010).

Traditionally, the CSU enrolls more community-college transfers than any other university system (Keller, 2011) in California. But in the 2009-2010 academic year, only

37,000 students successfully completed transfer from a community college to a CSU campus- compared to 54,000 only two years prior (see Figure 5). This represents a decrease of 23,000 students, who transferred to either a private college or a UC, dropped out, or not complete transfer to a 4-year college. While private colleges cost more, they

19 lack the funding and enrollment management issues of California’s public higher education systems and may represent a more stable and viable alternative to those who could afford them. However, overall, what happened to these community college students is unknown.

Figure 5

Where California’s California Community College Students Transferred, 2003-2004 to

2009-2010

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

California State

University

University of California

Private nonprofit colleges

0

Private for-profit colleges

Source: Keller, 2011

* Private-college data for 2009-10 are not yet available.

The beginning of this chapter discussed how decreasing financial support from the state and campus over-enrollment led to the enrollment of more students than CSU campuses could financially support. These factors, in the midst of continuing budget cuts, influenced the Chancellor’s Office and Board of Trustees to announce a 10% mandated enrollment reduction of total CSU student enrollment for the 2010-2011 academic year.

Implemented on a campus-by-campus basis, enrollment cuts utilized a variety of enrollment management strategies including impaction. This thesis is specifically

20 concerned with discovering if any student populations were disproportionally negatively impacted by enrollment cuts. While the Background touched on why transfer students could be disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts, the next section will discuss why

Latino students could also potentially the most vulnerable to enrollment cuts.

Literature Review

Why Latino Students Are Hypothesized to be the Most Vulnerable to Enrollment Cuts

As the largest segment of California’s population but the smallest segment of college graduates, Latino’s who do attend college are only half as likely to graduate from college than their White peers (Fry 2005a). While California Latino youth believe it is important to have a college education (Zarate & Pachon, 2006), Latino’s are also the least likely to finish high school (Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002). The literature shows Latino enrollment in higher education is constrained by access to higher education information and resources as well as low levels of academic preparedness. These conditions directly relate as to why Latino students may be the most vulnerable to the CSU’s enrollment cuts.

To sustain growth in Latino college graduates, it will be increasingly important to support Latino enrollment in higher education- particularly because of implications for

California’s future shortfall of college graduates. I will present the two key factors that may make Latino students vulnerable to CSU enrollment cuts, lack of information and academic preparedness, next.

21

Lack of Information

Latino’s are likely to lack essential information about higher education from two trusted support systems: their parents and their high school. While 96% of Latino parents want their children to go to college (Zarate & Pachon, 2006), they do not have the knowledge to assist their children with the college process. Among over 1,000 Latino parents surveyed, an overwhelming majority demonstrated low “college knowledge”

(Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002) about topics such as pre-requisites, application and acceptance- particularly parents with lower income and lower levels of educational attainment. This puts Latino students at a disadvantage for various steps in the college process such as taking college-level curriculum in high school, graduating from high school, learning about higher education and paying for related costs (2002).

Specifically, when it comes to financial aid information, more than 50% of Latino parents and approximately 43% of Latino students were unable to name one financial aid option (Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, n.d.). This survey also established a link between financial aid knowledge and college attendance with three out of four Latino’s not enrolled in college reporting they would have been more likely to attend college if they knew about their financial aid options (n.d.).

Latino parents and students prefer to receive college information in-person from a trusted source such as a teacher or counselor (n.d.). Yet, Latino’s (40%) are more likely to attend high schools with large student populations, high student-to-teacher ratios and have peers with low socioeconomic status (Fry, 2005b) as compared to White (8%) and

22

African American (30%) students in California. Their high schools are also likely to have fewer social resources and networks that promote higher education (Perna & Titus,

2005). For Latino students as well as African American students, Perna & Titus (2005) linked lower enrollment in higher education to a lack of social resources. Such resources include peers who are also planning on attending college and parental interaction with their high school about academics in addition to lower levels of family income and parental education (2005; Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002).

How Lack of Information Exacerbates Enrollment Cuts for Latino Students

Since Latino students lack regular access to trusted sources of higher education resources, the CSU expressed concern about how minority students will fair with evolving application and enrollment policies. Without timely updates, Latino students may miss the opportunity to apply to the CSU. Traditionally, minority students submit their applications later in the application period because they have to figure out how they are going to pay for college (California State University, 2008c). As just explained, the financial aid process may be more complicated for Latino students due to their lack of higher education information and resources from trusted messengers. Therefore, once a

Latino student does decide to apply to the CSU, they must be aware of application deadlines to ensure the review of their application occurs.

But, without key application information, Latino students may not realize the urgency of submitting their application in a timely manner and could potentially lose their chance to apply immediately, requiring them to wait until the next academic year or

23 semester (if applications will be accepted) to successfully apply to the CSU. This delay could be troublesome because delaying enrollment in higher education leads to low completion rates for Latino’s (Fry, 2002). But in the case that a campus still accepts applications after the November 30 th

application deadline, the later a student applies still diminishes the chance that their application will be reviewed because once a campus reaches their enrollment target, they halt application review.

To be competitive, all students must submit their applications prior to the

November 30 th

application deadline, making knowledge of the CSU’s application policies more important than ever. This will require Latino students, parents, their teachers and counselors to keep track of the CSU, their campus admission requirements and its enrollment deadlines closer than ever. With the current challenges of the state budget, the

CSU and their campuses will likely change their policies often as the financial support from the state evolves along with the availability for new student enrollment.

Lower Level of Academic Preparedness

When measured using GPA, senior class rank, and SAT/ACT scores (Swail,

Cabrera, and Lee, 2004), nearly 59% of Latino students were “not qualified” for higher education compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Further, just over 50% of 8 th

grade

Latino students surveyed expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree (2004). The implications for this represent themselves in academic preparedness. If a student does not expect to attend college, they will not properly prepare for its academic admission requirements.

For example, Latino’s are less likely to take college-preparatory coursework such as

24 high-level mathematics (2004). Additionally, Latino and African American students are more likely than any other race/ethnicity to attend a high school, which lacks a complete offering of the required A-G college prep classes (Oakes, Rogers, & Silver, et. al., 2006).

Academic unpreparedness negatively affects Latino’s acceptance and enrollment into a higher education institution as well as their retention and graduation rates (Muñiz, 2006).

How Lower Academic Preparedness Exacerbates Enrollment Cuts for Latino Students

As mentioned earlier in this section, one of the CSU’s enrollment management strategies is additional academic admission requirements for out-of-area applications such as higher GPA’s. Therefore, lack of academic preparedness will be a greater threat to a Latino student’s admission to an out-of-area CSU campus. If a Latino student is already academically unprepared for the basic academic requirements of college admission, they will face a larger academic barrier when seeking admission to a CSU campus outside of their local area.

Hypothesized to be the most vulnerable to CSU’s enrollment cuts, Latino students lack higher education information and are less academically prepared. Latino students lack access to information about higher education from trusted messengers- most notably, parents and teachers. Due to this lack of information, Latino students may not have the most up-to-date information about the CSU’s evolving application and enrollment policies, threatening their acceptance to a CSU campus. Additionally, Latino students tend to be less academically prepared for higher education than their peers. With additional academic requirements for acceptance to CSU campuses outside their local

area, Latino students may face more academic barriers to higher education.

The California State University system, its budget challenges and chronic overenrollment, established a backdrop for the implementation of enrollment cuts in the beginning of this chapter. The implementation and impact of enrollment cuts were reviewed in addition to why transfer students and Latino students could be disproportionately impacted by enrollment cuts. Next, in Chapter 3, the methodology presents a full description of data analysis.

25

26

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explainS the method of analysis used to assess the research question: were any student populations disproportionally impacted by CSU’s enrollment cuts. The key characteristics studied by the method of analysis will be reviewed in depth. Finally, through an explanatory table, I will introduce the data.

Method of Analysis

I will use a descriptive analysis to analyze CSU enrollment data to discover if any student populations were disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts. Defined broadly, a descriptive analysis summarizes, organizes and interprets raw data to provide a

“situational analysis”, or a “snap shot of the situation under study” (Mason, Gillenwater,

& Pugh et. al., n.d.). Specifically, I will provide a descriptive, or situational, analysis of enrollment cuts through statistical graphics, or the visual representation of quantitative data. Statistical graphics allows the achievement of four important analytical goals: explore the data, find a structure within the data, check assumptions, and communicate results of analysis (Jacoby, 1997). The rest of this paper will focus on achieving these four analytical goals.

To achieve these goals, bar graphs will visually present the data. Bar graphs are the appropriate form for this analysis because they allow for the comparison of large groups of one-time, discrete data- in this case, percent change in student enrollment.

General trends and patterns in student enrollment data will be discussed in terms of

27 campus, race/ethnicity, and/or class level. Introduced in the Results chapter and fully analyzed within the Conclusion, these trends will focus on the significant ends of the spectrum of positive or negative percent changes in student enrollment.

Data

To discover if any student populations were disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts within the CSU, this analysis will measure percent change in student enrollment. Percent change in student enrollment will be measured as a change in enrollment between the Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 semesters. This period is appropriate for this analysis because enrollment cuts were to be achieved by the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. Thus, cuts were made within both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, beginning in the Spring 2010 term. Since the 2010-2011 academic year is not complete, this analysis measures enrollment cuts enacted as of the census date for

Fall 2010.

Percent change in student enrollment will measure impacts at the system level as well as at each of the 23 CSU campuses. Enrollment data from Fall 2009 and Fall 2010, retrieved from various data sets found on the California State University's Analytic

Studies website (http://www.calstate.edu/as/), was used to calculate percent change in enrollment for various race/ethnicities and class level by campus and system-wide.

Key Student Characteristics

I will assess percent change in student enrollment through two student characteristics: class level and student race/ethnicity. Since enrollment cuts primarily

focus on managing the enrollment of new students, class level measures percent change

28 in the enrollment of both first-time freshman (FTF) (typically, recent high school graduates) and transfer students (the majority of which are upper-division students transferring from a community college). These students make up the bulk of newly enrolled students each semester. Total student enrollment by race/ethnicity will also be measured to capture the total impact of enrollment cuts at the campus level to account for continuing students as well as other newly enrolled student groups.

Student race/ethnicity will measure the following race/ethnicities: Latino, African

American (AA), Asian/Pacific Islander (API), and White. Latino combines “Mexican

American” and “Other Latino” race/ethnicity categories. Similarly, Asian/Pacific Islander combines “Asian American” and “Pacific Islander” categories. As discussed in the

Introduction, it is important to study the impacts of enrollment cuts in terms of race/ethnicity. Because not only California is the most racially/ethnically diverse state in the nation, but also as a majority-minority state, California needs to ensure its policies do not limit the opportunities of its diverse population.

Assessing multiple student characteristics adds another layer to this analysis, allowing for specific conclusions to be drawn about the impacts of enrollment cuts within the CSU system or a campus; for example, African American first-time freshman systemwide or Latino transfer students at Northridge, etc. To give the reader an idea of the full range of what will be studied by this analysis, Table 2 lists each of the student populations to be studied.

29

Table 2

Label and Description of the Student Populations to Be Studied

Description

1

2

3

Label

% Change in Total

Campus/System-wide

Enrollment

% Change in

Campus/System-wide

FTF

% Change in

Campus/System-wide

Transfers

Percent change in total enrollment from Fall 2009 to

Fall 2010 by campus or system-wide

Percent change in first-time freshman enrollment from

Fall 2009 to Fall 2010 by campus or system-wide

4 % Change in Total AA

5 % Change in FTF AA

6

% Change in AA

Transfers

7 % Change in Total API

8 % Change in FTF API

9

% Change in API

Transfers

10

11

12

13

14

15

% Change in Total

Latino

% Change in FTF

Latino

% Change in Latino

Transfers

% Change in Total

White

% Change in FTF

White

% Change in White

Transfers

Percent change in transfer student enrollment from

Fall 2009 to Fall 2010 by campus or system-wide

Percent change in total enrollment of African

American students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of African American first-time freshman from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of African American transfer students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in total enrollment of Asian/Pacific

Islander students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander first-time freshman from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander transfer students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in total enrollment of Latino students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of Latino first-time freshman from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of Latino transfer students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in total enrollment of White students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of White first-time freshman from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

Percent change in enrollment of White transfer students from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

This chapter presented the methodology by introducing the method of analysis,

30 key student characteristics and the data. The next chapter will present the results of the descriptive analysis, focusing on a discussion of general enrollment trends for each student population by race/ethnicity.

31

Chapter 4

RESULTS

To assess the impact of enrollment cuts within the California State University

(CSU) system, percent change in enrollment of various student populations from Fall

2009 to Fall 2010 were analyzed. Using descriptive statistics and a visual representation of the data via bar graphs, trends and patterns present among the percent change in student enrollment data were decoded. This section will review major enrollment trends and patterns in enrollment by race/ethnicity. Trends presented will represent percent changes in enrollment at the significant ends of the spectrum where enrollment cuts had the most positive or negative impact.

Table 3 introduces the reader to the raw data of percent change in student enrollment across campuses and system-wide. Specifically, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum for each student population studied are presented. This table provides a sneak peak as to the variation among the impacts of enrollment cuts on various student populations throughout the system. For example, the mean percent change between Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 for total African American student population across all campuses and the system is -12.6%, with a minimum of -57.66% and maximum of

+34.38%.

32

Table 3

Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum & Maximum Values Of the Student Populations To

Be Studied By Campus/System-wide

Mean

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum Label

% Change in Total Campus

Enrollment

% Change in Campus/Systemwide FTF

% Change in Campus/Systemwide Transfers

-4.07

-7.33

1.43

4.32

15.25

19.07

-14.43

-43.94

-42.76

3.86

16.63

28.70

% Change in Total AA -12.60 14.13 -39.62 34.38

% Change in FTF AA

% Change in AA Transfers

-8.33

-16.62

37.96 -57.66

55.00 -125.00

77.78

80.00

% Change in Total API

% Change in FTF API

% Change in API Transfers

% Change in Total Latino

% Change in FTF Latino

% Change in Latino Transfers

% Change in Total White

% Change in FTF White

% Change in White Transfers

1.55

0.54

11.52

3.82

-1.36

9.34

-12.17

-11.20

0.29

12.71

26.51

28.03

10.38

22.28

19.85

16.23

18.67

23.11

-40.43

-75.00

-84.09

-32.12

-56.88

-36.29

-84.52

-51.46

-53.93

21.97

32.76

52.94

24.36

30.68

39.75

0.00

18.69

28.24

Current Race/Ethnicity Breakdown of the CSU

Despite the fiscal challenges of the CSU, its student population grew by more than 80,000 students between Fall 1998 and Fall 2009. Of this growth, over 40,000 students (or around 50%) were Latino. This increase represents the largest growth of any racial/ethnic student population within the CSU during this timeframe. This growth has been steady over the past decade (see Figure 6), generally reflecting the overall population trend in California. Additionally, White student growth was an estimated

33

12,000 students along with nearly 10,000 Asian/Pacific Islander students. African

American student enrollment made minor gains of 3,000 students. The rest of this section will outline the impacts of enrollment cuts between the Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 semesters by race/ethnicity and class level.

Figure 6

CSU Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 1998-2009

Source: California State University. n.d (a) & California State University, n.d (b)

Percent Change in Student Enrollment Trends

Overall, total student enrollment decreased -5% system-wide. This -5% decrease played out differently at campuses across the system. In Chapter 2, Table 1 laid out the mandated enrollment reductions by campus size, ranging from -10.8% to 0% for a total reduction of 40,000 students. All campuses decreased their total enrollment except three, achieving a reduction of nearly 21,000 students. In reality, by campus, the impact of enrollment cuts from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010 on total student enrollment ranged from

34

-14% (East Bay) to +3.86% (Maritime Academy).The increases made at three campuses were +3.86% at Maritime Academy, +2.13% at Monterey Bay, and +0.21% at

Northridge. Further, student enrollment by class levels realized mixed results.

Per California’s Master Plan for Higher Education, first-time freshman were negatively impacted by enrollment cuts, decreasing -6.13% system-wide. At 14 of 23 campuses, decreases in first-time freshman ranged from -43.94% at Pomona to -1.27% at

Chico. Additionally, transfer students increased +4.64% system-wide. Of the 13 campuses whose transfer student enrollment increased, Los Angeles transfer students increased the most (+28.70) while Long Beach increased the least (+8.7).

As I present the results, it is important to keep in mind CSU campuses range in total student enrollment from less than 1,000 at Maritime Academy to over 35,000 at

Northridge (see Appendix B) with various amounts of students of each race/ethnicity and at class level. Therefore, large positive or negative percent changes in student enrollment have to be synthesized in the context of the campus’ size.

African American Students

African American students make up an average of 4% of the CSU student population. The following section will review the impacts of enrollment cuts to African

American enrollment. Presented first are impacts to total African American students system-wide and by campus then proceeded by first-time freshman, transfer students and concluding with campus trends. As a preview to this discussion, Table 4 summarizes system-wide impacts to African American student enrollment at the multiple class levels

35 studied including campuses who saw a major increase or decrease in their African

American population, as noted by the plus (+) or minus (-) sign after the campus’ name.

Table 4

Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on African American Students

Total

Enrollment

System-wide

First-Time

Freshman

Transfer

Students

Notable

Campus Trends

African

American

-15.4% -10.5% -23.4%

San Marcos (-)

Monterey Bay (+)

Maritime Academy (+)

African American Total Student Enrollment

System-wide, African American student enrollment decreased under enrollment cuts. At all but two CSU campuses, total African American student enrollment was negatively impacted, ranging from -37% at Channel Islands to -1.4% at Northridge. As previously mentioned, percent change must be put into context. A decrease of -37% at

Channel Islands represents a loss of 21 African American students, but at Northridge, a decrease of -1.4% represents a loss of 35 students. Maritime Academy (+34.4%) and

Monterey Bay (+11.5%) were the only two campus to see an increase in total African

American enrollment.

African American First-Time Freshman Enrollment

System-wide, African American first-time freshman enrollment decreased -

10.5%. At the campus level, 14 CSU campuses saw their African American first-time freshman enrollment decrease from -57.7% at San Diego to -2.9% at Fullerton. Of the nine campuses who increased their African American first-time freshman enrollment,

36 increases ranged from +6.98% at Monterey Bay to +77.8% at Channel Islands.

African American Transfer Student Enrollment

Additionally, African American transfer student enrollment decreased systemwide by -23.4%. The impact to the enrollment of African American transfer students’ was 50-50 with half of campuses increasing and half decreasing (Channel Island saw no change). Increases in African American transfer student enrollment ranged from +1.14% at San Diego to +80% at Monterey Bay. On the other hand, decreases ranged from -125% at San Marcos to -14% at Humboldt.

Campus Trends in African American Student Enrollment

African American student enrollment faired the best at Maritime Academy and

Monterey Bay with both seeing an increase in the enrollment at all class levels studied.

Conversely, San Marcos, East Bay, Dominguez Hills, and San Bernardino realized significant decreases in their African American student enrollment at all levels studied

(see Table 4).

Asian/Pacific Islander Students

Asian/Pacific Islander students make up approximately 13% of the CSU student population. The following section will review the impacts of enrollment cuts to

Asian/Pacific Islander students. Presented first are impacts to total Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment system-wide and by campus then proceeded by first-time freshman, transfer students and concluding with campus trends. As a preview to this discussion, Table 5 summarizes system-wide impacts to Asian/Pacific Islander student enrollment at the

37 multiple class levels studied including campuses who saw a major increase or decrease in their Asian/Pacific Islander population, as noted by the plus(+) and minus (-) sign after the campus’ name.

Table 5

Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Asian/Pacific Islander Students

Total

Enrollment

Systemwide

First-Time

Freshman

Transfer

Students

Notable

Campus

Trends

Asian/Pacific

Islander

+3.84% +3.49% +18.96%

Channel Islands (-)

Pomona (-)

Stanislaus (+)

Total Asian/Pacific Islander Student Enrollment

Asian/Pacific Islander total student enrollment increased system-wide nearly +4%.

Total campus enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander students increased at 17 campuses, decreasing at 6 campuses. Total campus enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander student increases peaked at nearly +22% (San Luis Obispo) while campuses total Asian/Pacific

Islander student enrollment decreased as much as -40% (Channel Islands).

Asian/Pacific Islander First-Time Freshman

Overall, Asian/Pacific Islander first-time freshman student enrollment increased

+3.5%. Asian/Pacific Islander first-time freshman increased enrollment at 16 out of 23 campuses, ranging from +2.24% at Fullerton to +32.8% at Sonoma. Of the six campuses that saw decreases in Asian/Pacific Islander first-time freshman, Channel Islands saw the largest decrease at -75% while Pomona saw the smallest decrease at -18.9%. There was

38 no change in the enrollment of Asian/Pacific Islander first-time freshman at San

Bernardino.

Asian/Pacific Islander Transfer Students

Additionally, Asian/Pacific Islander transfer students increased system-wide almost +19%. Asian/Pacific Islander transfer student enrollment increased at 16 campuses ranging from +2.9% at Sacramento to +52.9% at Chico. The six campuses whose Asian/Pacific Islander transfer student enrollment decreased ranged from -84% at

San Luis Obispo to -3.4% at Pomona. There was no change in Asian/Pacific Islander transfer students at Monterey Bay.

Campus Trends in Asian/Pacific Islander Student Enrollment

At 10 out of 23 campuses, Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment increased at all class levels studied. Standout campuses for Asian/Pacific Islander student enrollment included

Stanislaus (over +27% increases at two levels). Additionally, Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment decreased at all class levels at two campuses: Pomona and Channel Islands.

Latino Students

Latino students make up around 25% of the CSU student population. The following section will review the impacts of enrollment cuts to Latino students. Presented first are impacts to total Latino enrollment system-wide and by campus then proceeded by first-time freshman, transfer students and concluding with campus trends. As a preview to this discussion, Table 6 summarizes system-wide impacts to Latino student enrollment at the multiple class levels studied including campuses who saw a major

Latino +3% +1.6% +11%

Notable

Campus

Trends

San Diego (-)

Pomona (-)

Humboldt (+)

Sonoma (+)

39

increase or decrease in their Latino population, as noted by the plus (+) or minus (-) sign after the campus’ name.

Table 6

Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Latino Students

Total

Enrollment

System-wide

First-Time

Freshman

Transfer

Students

Latino Total Student Enrollment

System-wide, Latino student enrollment increased at all levels, ranging from +3% for total campus enrollment to nearly +11% for transfer students. Total campus enrollment of Latino students increased at all but six campuses. Increases in total Latino student enrollment peaked at +24.4% (Humboldt) (see Figure 7 below). On the other hand, decreases in total Latino student enrollment ranged from -32% at Channel Islands to -0.04% at Long Beach.

Figure 7

Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on Total Latino Student Enrollment

40

Latino First-Time Freshman Enrollment

Latino first-time freshman enrollment increased a mere +1.6% system-wide. Only

8 out of 23 campuses realized a decrease in their Latino first-time freshman enrollment.

Negative impacts to Latino first-time freshman enrollment ranged from -56.9% at San

Diego to -1.4% at Sacramento while positive gains ranged from +4% at Los Angeles to

+30.7% at Bakersfield.

41

Latino Transfer Student Enrollment

Latino transfer students realized the largest gains system-wide out of all the class levels studied, increasing nearly +11%. Of the 16 campuses whose Latino transfer student enrollment increased, the percent change in transfer student enrollments ranged from

+0.11% at Dominguez Hills to +39.75% at Humboldt. At seven campuses, decreases in

Latino transfer student enrollment ranged from almost -31% at San Marcos to -0.66% at

San Diego.

Campus Trends in Latino Student Enrollment

Latino enrollment increased at all class levels at 12 campuses and at two class levels at 7 campuses. Humboldt and Sonoma saw some of the greatest gains in Latino enrollment with Humboldt increasing as much as +24% at two levels and Sonoma +25% at two levels. Campuses increasing their enrollment of Latino students at two levels were

Channel Islands, Chico, Long Beach, and Maritime Academy. As for decreasing Latino enrollment, East Bay, Northridge, San Diego and Pomona decreased Latino student enrollment at all levels studied.

White Students

White students make up approximately 35% of the CSU student population. The following section will review the impacts of enrollment cuts to White students. Presented first are impacts to total White enrollment system-wide and by campus then proceeded by first-time freshman, transfer students and concluding with campus trends. As a preview to this discussion, Table 7 summarizes system-wide impacts to White student enrollment

at the various class levels studied including campuses who saw a major increase or decrease in their White student population at multiple class levels, as designated by the plus (+) or minus (-) sign after the campus’ name.

42

Table 7

Summary of Impact of Enrollment Cuts on White Students

Total Enrollment

System-wide

First-Time

Freshman

Transfer

Students

White -9.8% -13.5% 4.75&

Notable

Campus

Trends

East Bay (-)

Monterey Bay (-)

White Total Student Enrollment

White student enrollment decreased nearly -10% system-wide. Additionally,

White student enrollment decreased at all campuses except at Humboldt where there was no change (see Figure 8- for campus legend, refer to Figure 7). Total White student enrollment decreases ranged from -84.52% at Channel Islands to -1.14% at Maritime

Academy.

Figure 8

Percent Change in Total White Student Enrollment by Campus, Fall 2009 to Fall 2010

43

White First-Time Freshman Enrollment

White first-time freshman student enrollment decreased at 17 campuses with impacts ranging from -51.5% at Pomona to -2.7% at Sonoma for a total decrease of

-13.5% system-wide. From Long Beach (+4.3%) to Northridge (+18.7%), six campuses realized increases in their White first-time freshman enrollment.

White Transfer Student Enrollment

White transfer students were the only White class level whose enrollment increased (+4.75%) system-wide. At the campus level, White transfer student enrollment increased at 14 campuses. Increases in White transfer student enrollment ranged from

+0.42% at Long Beach to +28.2% at Fresno. However, White transfer student enrollment decreased at nine campuses, ranging from -53.9% Monterey Bay to -2.3% at Chico.

44

Campus Trends in White Student Enrollment

No campus increased its White student enrollment at all class levels studied. Six campuses saw increases in White student enrollment at the two class levels studied. Of these six campuses, three saw the largest increases at two class levels: Los Angeles

(+26.65% for transfers and +6.4% for first-time freshman), Long Beach (+14.81% for first-time freshman and +13.79% for transfers), and Northridge (+24.52% for transfers and +18.69% for first-time freshman). White student enrollment did decrease at all class levels studied at four campuses: Chico, East Bay, Monterey Bay, and San Luis Obispo.

Monterey Bay saw the largest decreases of -54% for transfer students and -35% for firsttime freshman.

To recap, the impacts of enrollment cuts by race/ethnicities were as follows.

African American students realized the largest negative impact while Asian/Pacific

Islander students realized the largest gains. Latino students also made gains, but not as large as Asian/Pacific Islander students. White students decreased overall but increased in transfer students. Figure 9 summarizes all trends by race/ethnicity.

Figure 9

System-wide Impacts to Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity

45

Class Level Impacts

Additionally, it is important to highlight the impacts at the class level for firsttime freshman and transfer students. While initially hypothesized that transfer students would be disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts as their enrollment has decreased over the past couple years (see Figure 5), first-time freshman were actually disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts, realizing a decrease of -6.13%.

Interestingly enough, first-time freshman increased for two of the race/ethnicities studied

(Asian/Pacific Islander and Latino), but not for the other two (African American and

White). Transfer students increased +4.64% system-wide and for 3 of 4 race/ethnicity studied. Specifically by race/ethnicities, impacts to transfer students are as follows:

Asian/Pacific Islander +19%, Latino +10.8%, and White +4.8% but -23.4% for African

American. This makes sense because transfer students have priority over first-time

freshman in the hierarchy of newly enrolled students. Figure 10 lays out these trends visually.

Figure 10

Impacts By Class Level: First-Time Freshman v. Transfer Students

46

This chapter outlined the impact of enrollment cuts within the California State

University (CSU) system as measured by percent change in student enrollment of various student populations. Major trends and patterns in enrollment changes for the CSU system, by CSU campus, by class level and by race/ethnicity yielded some unexpected results.

The next and final chapter, the Conclusion, will revisit the research question and discuss the implications of enrollment cuts outlined in this chapter.

47

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

To complete this analysis, the implications of enrollment cuts will be analyzed in context of the research question. Then, I will present an update of the status of the

California State University (CSU) student enrollment conditions. Finally, I will conclude with ideas for future analyses of student enrollment at the CSU.

Revisiting the Research Question

In this thesis, I sought to discover if any student populations were disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts within the CSU. To answer this question, I assessed the preliminary impacts of enrollment cuts with a descriptive analysis of both system-wide and campus-level impacts to student enrollment. Additionally, I focused on two student characteristics: race/ethnicity and class level, hypothesizing that Latino students and transfer students would be disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts.

My results proved contrary to this hypothesis.

African American students were disproportionally impacted by CSU enrollment cuts. Systemwide, African American enrollment decreased -15.4%. Additionally, African

American student enrollment decreased every class level studied: first-time freshman

(-10.5%) and transfer students (-23.4%). Further, total African American student enrollment only increased at only two campuses, Maritime Academy (+34.4%) and

Monterey Bay (+11.5%). In reality, Latino students made positive gains system-wide, at all class levels studied and at nearly every CSU campus. Latino students increased their

48 total enrollment within the CSU by +3% as well as +1.6% for first-time freshman and

+10.8 for transfer students.

First-time freshman were disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts. Systemwide, first-time freshman decreased by -6.13%. At the campus level, 14 campuses saw their total first-time freshman enrollment decrease. On the other hand, transfer students increased by +4.64% system-wide and at 13 campuses. Overall, the hypothesis was incorrect in its predictions for both the race/ethnicity and class level impacts of enrollment cuts.

The results of this analysis may simply be consistent with demographic changes of the CSU student enrollment. Figure 6 (Chapter 4) presented CSU enrollment by race/ethnicity over the past decade, which read similar to the results of this analysis with

African American and White enrollment declining and Asian/Pacific Islander and Latino enrollment increasing. It could be the case that no racial/ethnic student population was disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts, but that the racial/ethnic impacts of enrollment cuts, while more dramatic than previous years, were consistent with trends in enrollment at the CSU by race/ethnicity or even the demographics of California, which are becoming increasingly Latino (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1).

While I focused the bulk of my attention on the impacts of enrollment cuts to race/ethnicity, surprising results for the class level analysis became evident. I predicted transfer students would be disproportionally impacted by enrollment cuts versus firsttime freshmen due to the trend of decreasing enrollment of transfer students present

49 within the past three academic years as seen in Figure 5 (Chapter 2) . Additionally, firsttime freshman have also decreased their enrollment but at a lesser rate than transfer students (see Figure 11), hovering around the 50,000 student mark for the past three years. It could be the impacts of enrollment cuts by class level are consistent with class level enrollment trends over the past decade. Yet, these results are also consistent with

CSU policy to give local eligible transfer students priority over local first-time freshman.

Figure 11

First-Time Freshman Enrollment, Fall 2001-Fall 2009

Source: California State University, n.d.(m), n.d.(p), n.d.(q), n.d.(r), n.d.(s), n.d.(t), n.d.(u), n.d.(v)

Recently enacted policies have sought to make transferring from a community college to a CSU easier such as SB 1440, which “creates an associate degree for transfer that guarantees admission with junior standing to the CSU system” (California

Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2010). It could be that such policies are achieving their goal to increase transfer students as a proportion of new student enrollment to the CSU each year. Again, Figure 5 (Chapter 2) shows transfer students

50 have been decreasingly choosing the CSU as a four-year option to complete their

Bachelor’s degree. Another explanation for the increase in transfer student enrollment, in the midst of consecutive years of decrease, is transfer students realized there would be less opportunity for them at a CSU campus if they were not on their game. Therefore, they ensured they met all eligibility requirements and deadlines when applying to the

CSU. All of the trends presented within this analysis warrant further analysis as the state of California continues to face fiscal challenges, which can negatively impact CSU student enrollment as explained in Chapter 2.

Status of Student Enrollment in the CSU

Enrollment cuts sought to decrease total CSU enrollment by 40,000 students to eliminate unfunded students CSU campuses could not financially support. This analysis focused on the impacts of enrollment cuts through the Fall 2010 semester. Between Fall

2009 and Fall 2010, an enrollment decrease of -5%, or almost 21,000 students, was achieved. This represents about half of the goal established by the CSU. It is probably safe to say the CSU did not cut the other 19,000 students in the Winter and Spring 2011 semesters and therefore, did not realize the decrease in enrollment it sought to achieve.

(At the time of this writing, Spring 2011 system-wide enrollment statistics had not been published.)

Further, contrary to the intent of enrollment cuts, the CSU actually added 8,100 course sections to its Fall 2010 academic schedule (California State University, 2010i) as well as up to 3,000 course sections for Winter and Spring 2011 (California State

51

University, 2010k) to admit up to 10,00 new students throughout the system (2010k).

Similarly, the CSU accepted applications for the Spring 2011 semester despite Chancellor

Reed’s “uncertainty regarding state support for the 2010-2011 academic year” (California

State University, 2010j). The CSU ultimately enrolled up to 30,000 students for the

Winter and Spring 2011 semesters (California State University, 2010l).

These class section restorations were funded through one-time stimulus funding from the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is especially problematic because such funds were one-time in nature when the students it funded were not. In other words, the money to fund classes only comes once but the students, once admitted and enrolled, can be enrolled until they graduate without a commitment from the state to fund them. Without these course restorations, the CSU may have been able to realize its goal of cutting enrollment by 40,000 students. It is important to remember that even though enrollment cuts decrease opportunities for students, their objective was to put the CSU system into a better fiscal position. By eliminating students for whom there is no ongoing state financial support, the CSU would be better able to serve the education of students it does have, diminishing the need for such drastic enrollment cuts in the future.

As a side note, anecdotal evidence suggests some campuses have been strategically “over-enrolling”, accepting more students than the state target would allow.

The suggestion is that some larger campuses have sufficient economies of scale that, at least for now, the student fees provided sufficient revenue to keep the campus afloat.

This strategy is neither publicly documented nor effective in the end. In the meantime, students are feeling the effects of the CSU’s financial instability through declining campus resources and the decreasing availability of classes needed to graduate.

52

Balancing the desire to enroll and educate as many CSU-eligible students with strained financial resources is a dilemma, which will not likely be resolved anytime soon.

Despite receiving an increase in funding in 2010-2011 for the first time since 2007, the

Governor’s current budget proposal calls for a $500 million decrease in state support to the CSU. If implemented, the CSU’s budget would be similar to 1999-2000 levels when it served 70,000 fewer students (California State University, n.d. (i)). Obviously, the

CSU has been, and will likely continue to be, on a funding rollercoaster until the economy restores to a homeostasis. Therefore, it is likely the CSU will revisit enrollment cuts to manage budget deficits in the future.

Options for Further Research

As previously stated, the results of this thesis could lead to future research on enrollment by race/ethnicity and class level within the CSU. Regarding the student characteristic of race/ethnicity, more in depth research could further clarify whether CSU enrollment cuts are merely consistent with the demographic changes of the CSU and the state overall. Additionally, a similar analysis could present explore the linkages between new transfer student policies and transfer student enrollment levels. An assessment of new legislation and corresponding CSU/community college policy could show impacts on CSU transfer students.

As California moves forward, it will need to find a sustainable resolution to the

53 problems plaguing its public higher education systems. With California facing a potential shortfall of a million college graduates, California will need to maintain college enrollment and graduation despite a poor economy and state budget deficits. Similarly, as the demographics of California evolve, the state will also need to provide educational opportunities for its population to thrive and move California into the future.

APPENDICES

54

APPENDIX A

Map of the 23 California State University Campuses

55

Source: California State University, n.d. (j)

56

APPENDIX B

Percent Change in Total Enrollment by Campus and System-wide, Fall 2009-Fall 2010

1 Bakersfield

Percent

Change In

Total Student

Enrollment

-1.23

Fall

2009

8,003

Fall

2010

7,906

2 Channel Islands

3 Chico

4 Dominguez Hills

5 East Bay

6 Fresno

-0.89

-5.91

3,862

16,934

3828

15989

-4.50 14,477 13854

-14.43 14,749 12,889

-2.71 21,500 20,932

7 Fullerton

8 Humboldt

9 Long Beach

10 Los Angeles

11 Maritime Academy

12 Monterey Bay

13 Northridge

14 Pomona

15 Sacramento

16 San Bernardino

17 San Diego

18 San Francisco

19 San Jose

20 San Luis Obispo

21 San Marcos

22 Sonoma

23 Stanislaus

24 System-wide

-1.89 36,262 35,590

-0.65

-6.41

-2.37

3.86

7,954

35,557

20,619

823

7903

33416

20142

856

2.13 4,688 4790

0.21 35,198 35272

-7.36 22,273 20747

-8.17 29,241 27033

-8.85 17,852 16400

-12.57 33,790 30016

-2.53

-7.58

-5.26

-0.46

-1.80

-3.38

30,469

31,280

19,325

9,767

8,546

8,586

29718

29076

18360

9722

8395

8305

-5.02 433,054 412,372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assembly Budget Committee. (2010). Highlights of Governor's proposed May revision

2010-11 state budget. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from

57 http://asm.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=4

Brady, H., Hout, M., Stiles, J., Gleeson, S. & Hui, I. (2005). Return on investment:

Educational choices and demographic change in California's future. Survey

Research Center, University of California Berkeley.

Brand, J.E. & Xie, Y. (2010). Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education. American

Sociological Review, Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://personal.psc.isr.umich.edu/yuxie-web/files/working-papers/Brand-Xieedu.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Local area unemployment statistics (California).

Retrieved November 9, 2010 from http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers& series_id=LASST06000003

California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2010). SB 1440 fact sheet.

Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/SS/TransferArtic/Policy/SB%201440/SB%20144

0%20Fact%20SheetAugust2010x.pdf

58

California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit. (2010). 2009-2010

Statewide enrollment by ethnicity. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=2009-

10&cChoice=EnrollEth1&p=2

California Post-Secondary Education Commission. (2008a). Fiscal profiles, 2008:

Display 1-6. Retrieved December 19, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2008reports/08-19/01-06.PDF on

California Post-Secondary Education Commission. (2008b). Fiscal profiles, 2008:

Display 64-67. Retrieved December 19, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2008reports/08-19/64-67.PDF

California Post-Secondary Education Commission. (2009). 50 state comparison:

Median income. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FiscalData/MedianIncomeGraph.asp?Year=2009

California State University. (n.d (a)). CSU system-wide enrollment by ethnic group, Fall

1998 to Fall 2009. Retrieved December 21, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2007-2008/feth01.htm

California State University. (n.d (b)). CSU system-wide enrollment by ethnic group, Fall

2000 to Fall 2009. Retrieved December 21, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2009-2010/feth01.htm

California State University. (n.d. (c)). Table 22: College year targets and reported full- time equivalent students (FTES) paying resident fee. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr00-01/table22.html

California State University. (n.d. (d)). Table 22: College year full-time equivalent students (FTES): Target FTES, reported FTES, and percentage difference, from

1995-96.Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr05-

06/table22.shtml

California State University. (n.d. (e)). Table 22: College year targets and reported full-

59 time equivalent students (FTES) paying resident fee. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr06-07/table22.shtml

California State University. (n.d. (f)). Table 22: College year targets and reported full- time equivalent students (FTES) paying resident fee. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr07-08/table22.shtml

California State University. (n.d. (g)). Table 22: College year targets and reported full- time equivalent students (FTES) paying resident fee. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr08-09/table22.shtml

California State University. (n.d. (h)). Table 22: College year targets and reported full- time equivalent students (FTES) paying resident fee. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/cyr/cyr09-10/table22r.shtml

California State University. (n.d. (i)). Budget facts: Gov. Brown’s 2011-12 funding proposal. Retrieved April 17, 2011from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/BudgetCentral/BudgetFactSheet2011Final.pdf

California State University. (n.d. (j)). The 23 outstanding campuses of the California

State University. Retrieved April 15, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/datastore/campus_map.shtml

California State University. (n.d.(k)).Table 2A CSU enrollment by campus and ethnic group, Fall 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from

60 http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2010-2011/feth02.htm

California State University. (n.d.(l)). Table 1 CSU system-wide enrollment by ethnic group, number and percent of total, from Fall 1998. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2007-2008/feth01.htm

California State University. (n.d.(m)).Table 23.0 first-time freshmen from California high schools by ethnicity And admission category, Fall 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2007-2008/fnse03.htm

California State University. (n.d.(n)).Table 23.0-23.25 First-time freshmen from

California high schools by ethnicity and admission category, Fall 2010. Retrieved from March 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2007-

2008/fnse06.htm

61

California State University. (n.d.(o)).Table 29 Undergraduate transfers by segment of origin, Fall 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2010-2011/fnse06.htm

California State University. (n.d.(p)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high

schools by ethnicity and admission category, Fall 2008. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2008-2009/fnse03.htm

California State University. (n.d.(q)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


California State University. (n.d.(r)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


California State University. (n.d.(s)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


California State University. (n.d.(t)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


California State University. (n.d.(u)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


62

California State University. (n.d.(v)).Table 23 First-Time freshmen from California high


California State University. (2008a). State budget restrains enrollment growth at

California State University. Retrieved from November 26, 2010 http://calstate.edu/pa/news/2008/budget_final.shtml

California State University. (2008b). California State University declares system-wide impaction. California State University Public Affairs. Retrieved September 23,

2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2008/system-wide_impaction.shtml

California State University. (2008c). CSU leaders discuss budget and system-wide impaction (media teleconference transcript from 11/17/2008). Retrieved January

15, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/executive/multimedia/2008/CampusImpaction08transcript.pdf

California State University. (2008d). Enrollment. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/2008facts/enrollment_fall.shtml

California State University. (2009a). Budget cuts force CSU to close 2010 Spring admissions. Retrieved September 23, 2010 from http://calstate.edu/pa/news/2009/spring-admissions.shtml

63

California State University. (2009b). California State University Board of Trustees hear details of plan to close $584 Million budget deficit for 2009-10. Retrieved

September 23, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2009/bot-meetingjuly-summary.shtml

California State University. (2009d). California State University officials outline enrollment cuts and preview 2010-2011 budget. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2009/enrollment-budget.shtml

California State University. (2009e). Report to the Legislature on funding of enrollment growth and compensation increases in 2008-2009. Retrieved January 19, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/legislative-reports/0809-Funding-

Enrollment-Growth.pdf

California State University. (2010a). Governor’s May revision maintains $366 million restoration to California State University budget. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://blogs.calstate.edu/budgetcentral/?p=815

California State University. (2010b). 2010-11 State budget increases funding to CSU for the first time since 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/News/2010/release/Budget2010-11.shtml

California State University. (2010c). CSU local admission areas and service areas.

Retrieved December 18, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/sas/publications/documents/CSULocalAdmission-

ServiceAreas.pdf

64

California State University. (2010d). CSU funding. Retrieved December 19, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/PA/2010Facts/funding.shtml

California State University. (2010e). Student Costs. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/PA/2010Facts/costs.shtml

California State University. (2010f) Comparison Institution Fees. Retrieved December

23, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/student-fees/comparison-fees/

California State University. (2010g). Impaction. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/SAS/impactioninfo.shtml

California State University. (2010h). 2010-11 state budget increases funding to CSU for first time since 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2010/release/budget2010-11.shtml

California State University. (2010i). California State University to add classes to school schedules for Fall 2010. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2010/release/stimulus-funds.shtml

California State University. (2010j). California State University campuses to begin accepting applications for Spring 2011. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2010/release/spring-2011.html

California State University. (2010k). Final round of ARRA funding allows CSU to begin limited admission of new students to winter and spring terms. Retrieved

September 17, 2010 from www.calstate.edu/pa/news/release/2010/ARRA2010.shtml

65

California State University. (2010l). CSU will admit new students for Winter/Spring

2011. Retrieved September 27, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/release/2010/Winter_Spring2011.shtml

California State University. (2010m). 2010-11 state budget increases funding to CSU for the first time since 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/release/2010/Budget2010-11.shtml

Center for Regional Policy Studies. (2001). California series: Census 2000 fact sheet.

Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/special/metroamerica/factsheets/Census_FACTSHEET

6.pdf

CSU Budget Office. (1997). 1997/98 Final budget allocations. Retrieved January 16,

2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B97-03.pdf

CSU Budget Office. (1998). 1998/99 California State University: Final budget campus allocations. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B98-05-attachments.pdf

CSU Budget Office. (1999). 1999/2000 Final budget allocation. Retrieved January 16,

2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B99-03attachments.pdf

CSU Budget Office. (2000). 2000/2001 Final budget allocations. Retrieved January 16,

2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B00-04-attachments.pdf

66

CSU Budget Office. (2010a). 2010/11 Budget act allocations. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B10-04attachment.pdf

CSU Budget Office. (2010b). Historical enrollment. Retrieved January 16, 2011from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/2011-2012/documentation/12enrollment-growth-table.shtml

Day, J.C., & Newburger, E.C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. (Current Population Reports, Special

Studies, P23-210). Washington, DC: Commerce Dept., Economics and Statistics

Administration, Census Bureau. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf

Fallis, E. (2009). CSU receives record high number of applications during priority period . California State University Public Affairs. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://www.calstate.edu/pa/News/2009/priority-app-story5.shtml

Forbes, E. (2010). Access & opportunity: September-October 2010. California State

University: Office of the Chancellor. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/sas/conferences/2010/Access_Opportunity2010.ppt

Fry, R. (2005a). Recent changes in the entry of Hispanic and White youth into college.

Pew Hispanic Center.

Fry, R. (2005b). The high schools Hispanics attend: Size and other key characteristics.


67

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate.


Galuszka, P. (2009, November 11). CSU Chancellor expects minority enrollment to remain steady amid budget cuts. Diverse . Retrieved August 12, 2010 from http://diverseeducation.com/article/13183

Griffin, A. (2008). University eligibility study for the class of 2007. California Post-

Secondary Education Commission. Retrieved August 31, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2008reports/08-20.pdf

Hanak, E. & Baldassare, M. (ed.) (2005). California 2025: Taking on the future.

Retrieved December 18, 2010 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_605MB2R.pdf

Harris, M. (2007, May 29). Prison vs. education spending reveals California's priorities.

San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved December 19, 2010 from http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-29/opinion/17244077_1_school-dropoutsschool-diploma-spending-on-higher-education

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). Reaping the benefits: Defining the public and private value of going to college. The New Millennium Project on Higher

Education Costs, Pricing, and Productivity.

Jacoby, W.G. (1997). Statistical graphics for univariate and bivariate data: Statistical graphics . Sage Publications, Inc. (1 st

ed.): Thousand Oaks, CA.

Johnson, H.P. (1999). How many Californians? A review of population projections for

68 the state. Public Policy Institute of California . Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1099HJCC.pdf

Johnson, H., Sengupta, R. and Murphy, P. (2009). Closing the gap: Meeting California’s need for college graduates. Public Policy Institute of California . Retrieved

October 3, 2010 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_409HJR.pdf

Johnson, H. (2011a). California workforce: Planning for a better future. Public Policy

Institute of California. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_111HJ2R.pdf

Johnson, H. (2011b). California population: Planning for a better future. Public Policy

Institute of California. Retrieved January 9, 2011 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_610HJR.pdf

Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2010). An update on state budget cuts: At least 46 states have imposed cuts that hurt vulnerable residents and cause job loss. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved December 30, 2010 from http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-08sfp.pdf

Jones, A.G. (2008). System-wide impaction: New and revised enrollment management tools. California State University: Office of the Chancellor,

Memorandum. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/codedmemos/AA-2008-48.pdf

Keller, J. (2011, January 13). Facing new cuts, California’s colleges are shrinking their

69 enrollments. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved January 18, 2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/Facing-New-Cuts-Californias/125945/

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). (2010). The 2010-2011 Budget: Higher education.

Retrieved January 18, 2011 from http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2010/highered/Highered_anl10.aspx

Mason, J., Gillenwater, K., Pugh, R., Kenefik, E., Collins, G., Whitaker, M., & Volk, D.

(n.d). Descriptive analysis. PANDA. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.tulane.edu/~panda2/Analysis2/oneway/pg1%20descriptive%20analysis/oneway01.htm

Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2006). State of decline? Gaps in college access and achievement call for renewed commitment to educating Californians. Institute for

Higher Education Leadership and Policy. Retrieved December 14, 2010 from http://www.collegecampaign.org/assets/docs/stds/SOD-Report-No-Embargo-

FINAL.pdf

Moyer, L. (2010, August 12). Hard times for America’s biggest universities. Forbes .

Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/12/arizonaflorida-texas-california-business-biggest-universities.html

Muñiz , M. (2006). Latinos and higher education: Snapshots from the academic literature. Retrieved November 14, 2010 from http://diversity.umsl.edu/documents/latinos-and-highered_snapshots.pdf

The New York Times. (2010, July 23). Falling behind (graphic). The New York Times .

70

Retrieved July 23, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/07/23/education/23collegegraphic.html?ref=education

Newell, M. (2009). Higher education budget cuts: How are they affecting students?

California Post-Secondary Education Commission. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2009reports/09-27.pdf

Newell, M. (2010). End of year (2009 ‐ 2010) analysis of changes in the CCC system:

Students, courses and FTES. Unpublished manuscript/presentation. Received via e-mail from author.

Oakes, J., J. Rogers, & D. Silver, et.al. (2006). Removing the roadblocks: Fair college opportunities for all California students. University of California/All Campus

Consortium for Research Diversity (UC/ACCORD) & UCLA Institute for

Democracy, Education and Access (UCLA/IDEA). Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/eor-

06/RemovingRoadblocks.pdf/view on

Perna, L.W. and M. A. Titus (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education 76(5): 485-518.

71

Perna, L. W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic group differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29 (1): 23-52.

Piper, T. D. (2009). Enrollment management plan 2010-2012 (revised). Unpublished manuscript/presentation. Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs,

California State University: Northridge, CA. Retrieved January 10, 2011 from http://www.csun.edu/presofc/campusbudgetnews/Enrollment_Management_Plan-

2010-12.pdf

Public Policy Institute of California. (2010). Just the facts: California’s state budget.

Retrieved December 21, 2010 from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_BudgetJTF.pdf

RealityTrac. (2010). California Foreclosure Activity Decreases 21 Percent in November.

Retrieved December 21, 2010 by http://www.realtytrac.com/content/pressreleases/foreclosure-activity-decreases-21-percent-in-november-6251

Ryu, M. (2009). Minorities in higher education. American Council on Education .

Retrieved November 14, 2010 from http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm

Section=CAREE&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=34214

State Controller’s Office. (2008). Chiang releases December cash figures. Retrieved

November 9, 2010 from http://sco.ca.gov/eo_pressrel_5353.html

72

State of California, Department of Finance. (2000). Population by gender, age and race.

Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/productsservices/view.php#SF2

State of California, Department of Finance. (2007). Race/ethnic population with age and sex detail, 2000–2050 .

Retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/data/race-ethnic/2000-50/

State of California, Department of Finance. (2009). 2009-2010 California State Budget.

Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://2009 10.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/home.htm

State of California, Department of Finance. (2010a). California county race/ethnic population estimates and components of change by year, July 1, 2000–2008.

Retrieved November 9, 2010 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-

3/by_year_2000-08/index.php

State of California, Department of Finance. (2010b). Current population survey:

California two-year average series: March 2000-2009 Data.

Retrieved December

18, 2010 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/censussurveys/documents/CPS_Multi-Year_3-09.pdf

State of California, Department of Finance. (2011).Table 3A: Total population by race

73

(Hispanic exclusive) and Hispanic or Latino: 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_20

10/view.php

Swail, W.S., A.F. Cabrera and Lee, C. (2004). Latino youth and the pathway to college .


Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. (n.d.). Caught in the financial aid information divide: Key findings. Retrieved December 30, 2010 from http://www.thesalliemaefund.org/smfnew/pdf/TRPI_Key_Findings.pdf

Tornatzky, L., Cutler, R., and Lee, J. (2002). College knowledge: What Latino parents need to know and why they don’t know it. The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Turnage, R. (2010). Report on implementation of budget reductions for 2008/09 and

2009/10 fiscal years. The California State University: Office of the Chancellor.

Retrieved January 19, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/legislative-reports/0910-Budget-

Reductions-0809-0910-fullreport.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Resident population by race, Hispanic origin and age: 2000 and 2009. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0009.pdf

74

Varlotta, L. (2011). Enrollment management in the CSU: Right-sizing to align with state allocations. Enrollment Management Journal , 113-136. Retrieved February 6,

2011from http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/emj-f10-allocations.pdf

Wells, A.M. (2008). Trends of population growth and student demographic change in the state of California. The Vermont Connection , 29: 64-72.

Wilson, S., Newell, M., & Fuller, R. (2010). Ready or not: Here they come. California

Post-Secondary Education Commission. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2010reports/10-05.pdf

Zarate, M.E. & Pachon, H.P. (2006). Perceptions of college financial aid among

California Latino youth. Tomás Rivera Policy Institute: Policy Brief.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Related documents

Products

Support

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib